Skip to content
Democracy at Work Institute at a glanceMostly funded, not a grantmaker: see who funds it →

· Public charity

Democracy at Work Institute

The mission of the DEMOCRACY AT WORK INSTITUTE is to expand the worker cooperative model to reach communities most directly affected by social and economic inequality, specifically people of color, recent immigrants, and low-wage workforces.

$956k
Granted FY2024still arriving
6
Grants FY2024still arriving
3
States reached
$599k
Largest
01What it fundsRead
02The needRead
03Its granteesRead
04Its fieldRead
05Through PlinthRead
01What it funds
01100% classified

What it funded, over time

Every grant placed by its stated purpose and the recipient’s mission, by year, FY2017 to 2024.

Employment$862kEnvironment$671kCommunity Improvement$348kArts & Culture$328kPhilanthropy$294kFood & Nutrition$93kHuman Services$60kCrime & Legal$57kOther$0
02FY2024 · 6 grants

Where the money goes

Grants by size, and the largest recipients.

How this is measured
The 6 grants below total $759,678, the rows itemized in this filing. The $956,429 headline is the total grant expense on the return; the other $196,751 is giving the schedule does not break out (grants under the $5,000 itemization floor, grants to individuals, grants on other schedules). Every figure below describes the itemized rows only.

By grant size · FY2024

  • $10k–50k5 grants · $161k
  • $250k+1 grant · $599k
$34,063
Median grant
3
States reached
$3.0M
Total assets
Largest grants
RecipientAmount
GUILDED LCA$598,709
PILIPINO WORKERS CENTER$37,765
COOPERACION SANTA ANA (V)$34,063
APIS & HERITAGE MANAGING MEMBER LLC$32,000
UNITED TAXI WORKERS OF SAN DIEGO$31,091
COOPERATION LA$26,050
02The need
03

Does the money reach high-need areas?

Each grant placed by the hardship in its grantee’s ZIP, against the area’s typical level.

show:

Dollar for dollar, its grants (FY17–24) land where the poverty rate runs at 15%, against an area that typically sits at 11%. 74% of its dollars go to grantees based in above-average-need neighborhoods. Most of its grants land in higher-need ZIPs.

area typical 11%Worchester Roots: $6k → 11%GUILDED LCA: $599k → 22%COOPERACION SANTA ANA (V): $34k → 10%Trust Conservation Innovation: $12k → 10%Staffing Cooperative: $247k → 10%UNITED TAXI WORKERS OF SAN DIEGO: $31k → 11%KIWA: $110k → 12%Concerned Capital: $6k → 14%CA Harvesters Initiative: $52k → 18%LI Progressive Coalition: $6k → 6%The Working World: $8k → 17%APIS & HERITAGE MANAGING MEMBER LLC: $32k → 14%Center for Commnity Self-Help: $15k → 11%Cincinnati Union Cooperative: $10k → 16%NW Coop Development Center: $6k → 9%John Marshall Law School: $6k → 14%Capital Impact Partners: $90k → 7%Apis Heritage Capital Partner: $150k → 8%Staffing Cooperative: $143k → 19%Guilded: $99k → 22%Staffing Cooperative: $105k → 10%Cooperacion Santa Ana: $30k → 10%Pilipino Workers Center: $104k → 12%PILIPINO WORKERS CENTER: $38k → 14%CA Harvesters Initiative: $30k → 18%Farm Generations Cooperative: $41k → 17%Guilded: $94k → 22%Orgs under 5K: $9k → 10%Charitable Ventures of OC: $102k → 12%COOPERATION LA: $26k → 14%Phl Area Cooperative Alliance: $6k → 22%Next City: $6k → 10%Labors Training & Comm Dev: $97k → 12%Cooperation LA: $84k → 12%CareShare OC: $36k → 12%Courage LLC: $32k → 12%CleanWash Mobile LLC: $31k → 12%Pilipino Workers Center: $30k → 12%KIWA: $30k → 12%Cooperation LA: $30k → 12%CleanWash Mobile LLC: $23k → 12%Courage LLC: $19k → 12%United Taxi Workers of SD: $18k → 12%CareShare OC: $15k → 12%Cooperation LA: $7k → 12%0%20%40%50%more need →
grant to an above-average-need area below average· circle size = grant amount
How this is measured
Matched: human-services grants are those whose grantee’s IRS cause code is Human Services. Placed by people below the poverty line in the grantee’s ZIP, averaged from the tracts in that ZIP.

Which US states its grants reach

VT
WA
IL
WI
NY
MA
OH
PA
CA
VA
MD
NC
DC
How this is measured
US grants placed by each grantee’s ZIP, which can differ from where services are delivered. Need from public data (U.S. Census/ACS, CDC PLACES, Eviction Lab, USDA), shown as context about the area, never attributed to the funder’s giving.
03Its grantees
repeat funding

Who it funds again

Organizations funded in more than one year, against those funded once.

48%of every dollar goes to organizations it has funded before.
$1.3M · 10 repeat orgs$1.4M to everyone else

10 repeat relationships: 3 still active in FY2024, 7 since wound down; 3 grantees were first funded in FY2024 (too recent to call).

How the two cohorts compare

Re-uppedFunded once

Organizations

10
22

Total granted

$1.3M
$770k

Median revenue growth · since first grant

+34%
+216%

Still filing today

40%
50%

New vs renewed · share of each year

In FY2024, 13% of grant dollars renewed an existing relationship; $662k went to new ones.

50%100%’17’18’19’21’22’23’24
RenewedFirst-time

Where new relationships form · theme of each grantee’s first grant

’17’18’19’21’22’23’24
Community ImprovementEnvironmentPublic Safety & DisasterArts & CultureSocial ScienceEducationOther
How this is measured
First-time means a grantee’s first year in the filing window; renewed means funded in an earlier year too. The renewed share climbs naturally as a portfolio matures, so the signal is a year that bucks it (a wave of new grantees). The earliest year is left-censored: relationships that predate the data read as new. Theme is the grantee’s IRS cause.

Backed again, and grew

  • PW
    PILIPINO WORKERS CENTER OF SOUTHERN
    3× · 2021–2024 · $172k · revenue +29%
  • CL
    Cooperation L A
    4× · 2021–2024 · $146k · revenue +246%
  • CS
    Cooperacin Santa Ana
    2× · 2023–2024 · $64k · revenue +34%

Funded once

  • AH
    Apis Heritage Capital Partner
    one grant, 2021 · $150k
  • SC
    Staffing Cooperative
    one grant, 2018 · $143k
  • CV
    Charitable Ventures of OC
    one grant, 2021 · $102k
How this is measured

Repeat means funded in two or more distinct years. Growth and survival are read from each grantee’s own subsequent IRS filings.

04Its field

Closest unfunded matches

The nonprofits that most resemble its grantees but are not funded by it, scored along the direction from the rest of the field toward the portfolio. A resemblance in what they say they do, not a recommendation.

1
Community Cooperative dba Francesco Collaborative

Community Cooperative's mission is to support entrepreneurs and organizations advancing the cooperative and solidarity economy through connection to funding, training, workshops, networks, and resources that foster leadership in the…

Social Science
2
Center for Creation of Cooperation

Creating a cooperative culture

Education
3
Fuerza LaboralPower of Workers

Fuerza Laboral is a workers' rights center whose mission is to shift the balance of power in our economy in favor of workers by educating, training, and organizing workers to become community leaders; taking direct action to recover unpaid…

Education
4
Cooperative Development Foundation

To promote and develop cooperatives to improve economic opportunities for all.

Employment
5
Coop Careers Inc

Building a movement of diverse, upwardly mobile college grads overcoming underemployment through digital skills and peer connections.

Education
6
Central Ohio Workers Center Inc

The Central Ohio Worker Center is a non-profit organization that educates, empowers, and advocates for and with low-wage and immigrant workers in Central Ohio.

Civil Rights
7
Collective Remake Art Business Education Jobs News People and Rec

COLLECTIVE REMAKE: Art, Business, Education, Jobs, News, People, and Recycling for Sustainability is a unique social co-operative-in Los Angeles County-designed to support the creation of worker-owned businesses and other kinds of…

Education
8
Nyc Nowc Inc

The NYC Network of Worker Cooperatives is dedicated to sharing and cultivating the educational, financial, and technical resources of its members and supporting the growth of worker cooperatives for social and economic justice. We offer…

Community Improvement
9
Chicago Workers' Collaborative Nfp

Chicago Workers' Collaborative's mission is to promote full employment and equality for the lowest wage-earners, primarily temporary staffing workers, in the Chicago region through leadership and skills training, critical assistance and…

Education
10
United States Federation for Worker Cooperation

To build a thriving ecosystem for worker-owned and controlled businesses - and their cooperative leaders - to power movements for racial justice and economic democracy.

Employment
11
Minority Contractor Collaboration
Employment
12
Co-Op Ed Center Nfp

The CO-OP ED Center NFP is an organization committed to building democratic worker-owned businesses in Chicagoland that contribute to a strong local economy and invest in community development. Its a purpose is to train, develop and…

Employment
How this is measured
The grantee most central to the portfolio’s shape is Center for Community Self-Help; the most unlike its peers is United Taxi Workers of San Diego. Resemblance is measured on each organization’s own IRS 990 mission text; it reflects how work is described, not its quality or impact.
04the grantee network

17 grantees tracked through their own filings, 2017–2025.

Each grant beside the grantee’s revenue from every source, year by year.

How this is measured

Counted here: distinct organizations funded across 2017 to 2025, not grant rows in a single year, so this will not match the grant count on the cover. 17 of the 35 grantees resolved in that span have returns of their own we could reconcile.

Each grantee is resolved to its own IRS returns. Association, dated; never a causal claim.

0
Load-bearing (≥25% of a budget)
9
Early backer (in before they grew)
16/17
Grantees still filing
15/17
Grew since first funded

Where the money sits, by cause and then by grantee

GUILDED LCA: $598,709 · OtherGUILDED LCAStaffing Cooperative: $351,596 · OtherStaffing CooperativeGuilded: $192,561 · OtherGuildedApis Heritage Capital Partner: $150,000 · OtherApis Heritage Capital PartnerStaffing Cooperative: $142,500 · OtherStaffing CooperativeCharitable Ventures of OC: $101,932 · OtherLabors Training & Comm Dev: $96,820 · OtherCALIFORNIA HARVESTERS INC: $82,000 · Other+16 more: $313,547 · Other+16 morePILIPINO WORKERS CENTER OF SOUTHERN: $171,649 · Community ImprovementPILIPINO WORKERS…KOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS ADVOCATES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $140,056 · Community ImprovementKOREAN IMMIGRANT…Cooperacin Santa Ana: $64,333 · Community ImprovementCooperacin Santa…COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC: $22,000 · Community ImprovementCOOPERATIVE DEVE…+1 more: $8,000 · Community ImprovementCooperation L A: $146,475 · Arts & CultureCAPITAL IMPACT PARTNERS: $89,600 · Public BenefitUNITED TAXI WORKERS OF SAN DIEGO: $31,091 · Public Safety & DisasterMULTIPLIER: $12,000 · EnvironmentWORCESTER ROOTS PROJECT: $6,000 · EnvironmentCenter for Community Self-Help: $15,000 · Employment
Other$2,029,665Community Improvement$406,038Arts & Culture$146,475Public Benefit$89,600Public Safety & Disaster$31,091Environment$18,000Employment$15,000

Each grantee by its size and the funder’s share of it; top left is load-bearing

25%50%75%100%$1.0M$10M$100Mgrantee revenue →↑ funder's share of their budgetPILIPINO WORKERS CENTER OF SOUTHERN: $171,649 over 3y, 2.1% of budgetCooperation L A: $146,475 over 4y, 6.1% of budgetKOREAN IMMIGRANT WORKERS ADVOCATES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: $140,056 over 2y, 1.6% of budgetCAPITAL IMPACT PARTNERS: $89,600 over 1y, 0.4% of budgetCooperacin Santa Ana: $64,333 over 2y, 1.7% of budgetUNITED TAXI WORKERS OF SAN DIEGO: $31,091 over 1y, 8.6% of budgetCOOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE INC: $22,000 over 1y, 0.9% of budgetCenter for Community Self-Help: $15,000 over 1y, 0.6% of budgetMULTIPLIER: $12,000 over 1y, 0.1% of budgetCINCINNATI UNION COOPERATIVE INITIATIVE: $10,000 over 1y, 2.8% of budgetTHE WORKING WORLD INC: $8,000 over 1y, 0.3% of budgetWORCESTER ROOTS PROJECT: $6,000 over 1y, 9.8% of budgetNORTHWEST COOPERATIVE DEVELOPMENT CENTER: $6,000 over 1y, 1.1% of budgetLEGACY LAW SCHOOL CORPORATION: $6,000 over 1y, 0.0% of budgetPHILADELPHIA AREA COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE: $6,000 over 1y, 3.8% of budgetLONG ISLAND PROGRESSIVE COALITION INC: $6,000 over 1y, 1.5% of budget
Grantee by grantee: a decade per organization, before and after funding

A decade per grantee: revenue shaded, grants as bars, all rows on one timeline.

Co-funders

Grantmakers whose grantees overlap with this funder’s far more than size alone predicts. Closer means stronger alignment; arcs show where they also fund each other. Here they form a tightly interlocked group: most of these funders back each other's grantees too.

Amalgamated Charitabl…The California Endowm…Cooperacin Santa AnaWeingart FoundationWK Kellogg FoundationSilicon Valley Commun…California Community …ImpactassetsincTides FoundationLocal Initiatives Sup…Donor Advised Charita…Fidelity Investments …
Amalgamated Charitable Foundation IncDC15.9× affinity6 shared granteesties to 11 of 11Hover any node to trace its alignments.Compare side by side →

Open a dossier: Amalgamated Charitable Foundation Inc · The California Endowment · Cooperacin Santa Ana · Weingart Foundation · WK Kellogg Foundation · Silicon Valley Community Foundation · California Community Foundation · Impactassetsinc · Tides Foundation · Local Initiatives Support Corporation · Donor Advised Charitable Giving Inc · Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund

How this is measured
Affinity is a Gamma-Poisson posterior co-funding rate, re-centered on the typical rate, so thin evidence shrinks toward no signal. Overlap is association, not proof of shared intent.

How much its grantees rely on government

Each dot is one organization Democracy at Work Institute funds: left to right is the share of its income from government, bottom to top the share from Democracy at Work Institute. Bigger dots raise more.

2024
’20’21’22’23’24’25
no gov · 00%1%3%6%10%funder's share of their income ↑0%25%50%75%100%share of the org’s income from government →median 31%
  • Cooperative Development Institute Inc: 58% of income from government
  • Vermont Employee Ownership Center: 31% of income from government
  • Worcester Roots Project: 12% of income from government
no gov moneyreceives it· size = income
0get no government money at all
5report government grants on their 990 we could not trace to a source (not plotted)
1rely on government for over half their income
typical government reliance, FY20–25
How this is measured
Government income is each org’s traced federal awards (USASpending grants and contracts) plus state payments (open checkbooks) as a share of its total revenue (IRS Form 990); the self-reported government-grant line (990 line 1e) is carried for cross-check: a grantee that reports government grants we could not trace to a source is left off the chart rather than shown as receiving none. An association, not a claim that a grant caused the public funding. Coverage is precision-first, a floor rather than a census; state records exist for 9 states, so a grantee outside them shows no state figure (dimmed) rather than a false zero. Federal award amounts are obligations, which can span years, so a single-year share is indicative. 990 filings lag 12 to 24 months.
05Through Plinth

Warm introductions · Powered by PlinthPlus

How do I get to Democracy at Work Institute?

Find your warmest path to Democracy at Work Institute through trustees and officers whose names appear on both boards. Search for your organization and Plinth traces the shortest route it can evidence.

Each link is a name appearing on two organizations’ public IRS 990 filings, matched on that name and, where the filings support it, on location. A same-state match has geographic support, which is a second matching feature rather than confirmation that the two are one person; a cross-state one is the likeliest to be two people who share a name. Every hop shows its tier, low-confidence and distant paths are held back rather than guessed, and it is worth confirming the person before you use the introduction.

On method. Every financial figure here is read from IRS e-file XML, the funder’s own 990/990-PF, and from the multi-year returns of the 35 grantees we resolved, each linked to its source. Grantee outcomes are each organization’s own program-service reporting (Form 990, Part III), read as association with funding, never as caused by it. Low-confidence name matches are suppressed rather than guessed. How we build these →

How this is measured
Each figure carries one of six labels. Filed is what the funder reported on its return. Official is another government record about an organization, such as a federal award or a charity register, joined by name where no shared identifier exists. Resolved is an identity we worked out where the filing named a recipient without an EIN, kept only above a measured confidence threshold. Computed is arithmetic over those, like themes, portfolio clusters and co-funder strength. Context is a statistic about a place rather than about an organization, which is what the need overlay is: it describes the area a grantee’s address sits in, not where its work lands. Inferred is drawn by a model from text, like the partnerships read out of public news and organization websites. Each is labeled where it appears.

Generated from the IRS Form 990 e-file return for fiscal year 2024, released 2024. Filings run roughly 12 to 24 months behind; figures are dated accordingly.

Source object · view filing

Play a game based on Democracy at Work Institute’s filings →

More from the funding graph

The unnamed billions
grants reported with no recipient in the public record
The regranting layer
51% of grant dollars land in the regranting layer
The DAF merry-go-round
$9.7B circulates between donor-advised funds
The endowment market
who holds foundation money, and what just moved
The camps
funders cluster by geography, not ideology
By state
where grant money is based, and what stays home